Cases 31 - 40 of 195
Jones v. Mississippi County, Missouri et al
as 1:2023cv00150
Plaintiff:
Almashia L Jones
Defendant:
Mississippi County, Missouri, Sheriff Britton Ferrell, Michael Adams and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Tucker v. Adams
as 4:2023cv00978
Petitioner:
LuJuan Tucker
Respondent:
Richard Adams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Grant v. Ervin et al
as 4:2023cv00791
Plaintiff:
Joseph Grant
Defendant:
John Ervin, Ms. Unknown Pucket and Richard Adams
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
McClendon v. Adams
as 4:2023cv00546
Petitioner:
Corey B. McClendon
Respondent:
Richard Adams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Huffman v. Adams
as 4:2023cv00446
Petitioner:
Phillip A. Huffman
Respondent:
Richard Adams
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Schumer v. Jereda et al
as 2:2023cv04061
Plaintiff:
Tyler Raphael Schumer
Defendant:
Justin K Jereda, Schaeffer, Adam Roberts and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Gilley v. Precythe et al
as 6:2023cv03073
Petitioner:
Joshua R Gilley
Respondent:
Anne L. Precythe, Richard Adams and Eric Schmidt
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Blair et al v. Boyer et al
as 4:2023cv00189
Plaintiff:
Diamond-Donnell D. Blair and William C. Blair
Defendant:
Brian Boyer, Anne Precythe, Jeff Norman and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Taylor v. Adams et al
as 4:2023cv00139
Plaintiff:
Leonard Taylor
Defendant:
Richard Adams and Ann Precythe
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Buckner v. Shaffer et al
as 2:2023cv00004
Plaintiff:
Earnest L. Buckner
Defendant:
A. Shaffer, M. Golain, D. Austin and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
